|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
20 Jan 2011, 14:22 (Ref:2818305) | #1 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 6,986
|
Ferrari's Marlboro sponsorship
Given all the cigarette advertising and sponsorship bans, can somebody explain how this is still allowed.
Ferrari extends its Marlboro sponsorship contract |
|
|
20 Jan 2011, 14:49 (Ref:2818330) | #2 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,742
|
It's allowed because it was never made illegal. The departure of the tobacco companies (Japan Tobacco aka Mild Seven, BAT aka Lucky Strike, Reemtsma aka West, and Phillip Morris aka Marlboro) was down to an agreement made between the parent companies, which Phillip Morris...chose not to stick to
|
||
__________________
F1 fans - over-reacting about everything since forever |
20 Jan 2011, 15:17 (Ref:2818346) | #3 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 6,986
|
Quote:
|
||
|
20 Jan 2011, 17:09 (Ref:2818393) | #4 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 13,211
|
Funny that it may be allowed, when, reading somewhere this morning, the Lotus team (Renault, not Fernandes) may not be allowed to race at Canada using the black and gold livery as it's (still) associated with JPS.
|
||
__________________
That's so frickin uncool man! |
20 Jan 2011, 18:03 (Ref:2818426) | #5 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 4,349
|
The various government bans were on advertising the product, not making it....
It amazes me that if the product is so toxic and against the public interest why it wasn't banned outright... Too Hard? Yes it would have been too hard and no government would have the courage to do straight off. So they raised the taxes to discourage people from purchasing it... F1 acknowledged the various national bans and eliminated advertisng on F1 cars... My view is that the companies should be allowed to advertise unless the product is illegal to manufacture and sell..... To suggest they can't spend their money on sponsorship if thats what they want to do is ludicrous. |
|
|
20 Jan 2011, 18:18 (Ref:2818436) | #6 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 6,069
|
Quote:
Should they be banned, cigarettes would still get to the smokers via the black market and the govt doesnt get to tax that. Not to mention the cost of policing a total ciggy ban. |
|||
|
20 Jan 2011, 19:40 (Ref:2818480) | #7 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 6,986
|
The debate on banning cigarettes is a slightly different subject, but the ban on advertising them was clear. I had also understood that Formula One had outlawed sponsorship as well advertising... and it appears they did, but with the exception of Ferrari and Marlboro. That's the shameful thing.
|
|
|
20 Jan 2011, 19:56 (Ref:2818488) | #8 | |
Race Official
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 8,949
|
I was under the impression that Marlboro (or Phillip Morris) bought the space on the car livery and were able to re-sell to other, non tobacco sponsors?
|
|
|
20 Jan 2011, 20:37 (Ref:2818508) | #9 | |||
14th
1% Club
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 42,466
|
Oh no!
Quote:
Also, I would have to question your motives. Are you sponsored by Marlboro? |
|||
__________________
Seriously not taking motorsport too seriously. |
20 Jan 2011, 22:22 (Ref:2818547) | #10 | ||
Race Official
20KPINAL
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 21,606
|
That's all very suspicious !
|
||
__________________
Show me a man who won't give it to his woman An' I'll show you somebody who will |
20 Jan 2011, 23:29 (Ref:2818565) | #11 | |||
Racer
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 252
|
Quote:
Yeah it sounds as if Ferrari have been given some sort of 'secret agreement' with the F1 power brokers!............gee that's NEVER happened before! Next thing we'll hear is Monaco apparently doesn't meet the safety requirements for F1 circuits!...........how long's their contract?....oh yeah, forever! F1 needs both of the above, so they do as they please. |
|||
|
21 Jan 2011, 00:33 (Ref:2818576) | #12 | |
20KPINAL
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 29,853
|
I am so upset right now.
|
|
|
21 Jan 2011, 00:58 (Ref:2818581) | #13 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,013
|
I am so upset I may just light up a fag!
I BELIEVE the ban was/is on adverts; in other words, branding on the car not corporate sponsorship. |
||
|
21 Jan 2011, 01:17 (Ref:2818583) | #14 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 4,349
|
Quote:
|
||
|
21 Jan 2011, 06:59 (Ref:2818633) | #15 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 13,211
|
Quote:
|
|||
__________________
That's so frickin uncool man! |
21 Jan 2011, 10:47 (Ref:2818709) | #16 | |
Retired
20KPINAL
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 22,897
|
That plan is obviously not working. However, they're now trying to combat that problem with the introduction of blanket smog areas in many developing countries.
|
|
|
21 Jan 2011, 20:22 (Ref:2818972) | #17 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 6,986
|
||
|
21 Jan 2011, 20:35 (Ref:2818979) | #18 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 692
|
Quote:
|
||
__________________
Please, call me dye. |
21 Jan 2011, 20:42 (Ref:2818983) | #19 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,087
|
Great news, I'm all for tobacco advertising, if I want to smoke I dont need the goverment to tell me and nor will a car advertising the brand sway me. F1 fans have enough of an IQ to follow a similar train of thought.
|
|
|
21 Jan 2011, 20:51 (Ref:2818991) | #20 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 6,986
|
||
|
22 Jan 2011, 02:54 (Ref:2819101) | #21 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 505
|
I say bring back cigarrette advertising/sponsorship that way teAms can afford to pick deserved(fast) drivers instead of relying on drivers(slow) to come up with the necessary funding.
|
||
|
22 Jan 2011, 03:03 (Ref:2819107) | #22 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 505
|
We can say that Marlboro own the Ferrari race team or at least 70% of it. That's how they get away with it. They pay the drivers salaries etc. That's why the whole car is void of any sponsors because they own the space. Ferrari can't sell that space cause it is owned by them. Marlboro knows that the public know it's Marlboro without any mention of it. Sort of like JPS. No mention of the brand but we all know who it is.
|
||
|
22 Jan 2011, 03:35 (Ref:2819108) | #23 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,088
|
Quote:
The manufacturers and car would also be unable to force rubbish technology into F1, and the racing would become important once again. |
||
|
22 Jan 2011, 05:44 (Ref:2819120) | #24 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 3,793
|
I realize that not every jurisdiction allows alcohol advertising, but I have always been surprised by the relatively low number of sponsors in the booze industry that have appeared in F1 in recent times. I know there are a couple (Diageo, Flagman Vodka) and some tangential ones (don''t tell me Kingfisher Airlines doesn't passively advertise Kingfisher beer) but it seems luxury spirits are under-represented. Grey*Goose Racing anyone? Patron had some success in that regard in the ALMS with Highcroft, a deal that is sadly no longer.
That or, as the world changes, every F1 team will end up being sponsored by companies marketing (probably crappy) pot... |
||
|
22 Jan 2011, 18:53 (Ref:2819279) | #25 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 11,402
|
|||
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
[Team] Marlboro to leave Ferrari | Razor | Formula One | 9 | 1 Apr 2010 12:54 |
Scuderia Ferrari Marlboro Ferrari? | kristof14 | Formula One | 19 | 17 Jan 2009 11:57 |
Ferrari and Marlboro | btcckid | Formula One | 3 | 6 Oct 2007 12:39 |
Ferrari/ Marlboro situation | Racer_kyle | Formula One | 17 | 25 Aug 2005 23:59 |
Marlboro & Ferrari | delboy | Formula One | 2 | 26 Sep 2000 22:29 |